To: Chairs and Members of the Joint Standing Committee on Transportation

cc: Governor's Office (Governor; Lusk; Libby)

MDOT (Commissioner; Nass; Moulton; Hayes)
Government Oversight Committee; OPEGA
Joint Standing Committee on Appropriations and Financial Affairs

From: Pem Schaeffer

Brunswick, Maine
207-798-6919
pemster4062@yahoo.com

Date: January 26, 2018

Subject: The Case for Halting NNEPRA's $10 Million Royal Junction Siding Project
(An Addendum to “Call for immediate investigation into NNEPRA management failings” dated
December 10, 2017)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary:

This addendum further examines the details of NNEPRA's proposed Royal Junction Siding Project,
now underway at a cost of nearly $10 million. Justification on the basis of railroad operations is
demonstrably unconvincing. The only credible barrier to Downeaster service expansion is Pan Am
Railway's limit of six daily slots on their tracks between Portland and Brunswick when ten slots would
be necessary. Since Pan Am will be doing all the project work, and is the owner of all related trackage,
it is entirely possible that the $10 million is a quid-pro-quo for granting four more daily slots.

The Royal Junction Siding Project should be ordered stopped immediately, pending detailed
investigation of all relevant facts by the Joint Standing Committee on Transportation, and other directly
responsible State Government parties.

Published Rationale for the Project

The passages copied below appear in the Application Narrative submitted by NNEPRA for the Royal
Junction Siding Project, dated June 3, 2015 in pursuit of a Discretionary Grant under the FY 2015
TIGER Program. (http://www.nnepra.com/sites/default/files/TIGER%207%20Royal%20Junction
%20Siding%20Project%20Narrative.pdf)

The application sought $7.6 million against an estimated total cost of $8.5 million, and was denied. Of
note, the Brunswick Layover Facility in Brunswick has been completed, and has been in operation
since late 2016. The siding was originally packaged as one of three components of NNEPRA's plans
for a Portland North Service Optimization Project, which included the Brunswick Layover Project, now
operating, and a Portland Wye for which plans appear to have been abandoned, and at the very least is
no longer promoted as necessary for expansion to 5 round trips daily extending to Brunswick.

1
 Project Elements:
Construction of a four mile passing siding to provide capacity to support the operation of five daily
round-trips between Brunswick and Boston.
-------------------------
The rail line between Portland and Brunswick is mostly single track, which is why passenger train trips
are limited to six, compared to ten one-way trips between Portland and Boston. … Even so, constraints
in track capacity between Portland and Brunswick limit the number of trips to six until another passing
siding can be built.
-------------------------
Pan Am Railways has provided engineering plans for a passing siding at Royal Junction and has agreed
to permit the operation of five daily round-trip Downeaster trains between Portland and Brunswick
upon its completion. All work for this element will be performed by Pan Am Railways within their
railroad right-of-way with no additional environmental impacts anticipated.
-------------------------
Royal Junction Siding will be constructed as a double block passing siding to allow “at-speed” meets of
passenger trains, meaning that both passenger and freight trains can move through Royal Junction
concurrently, and without conflict.

In summary, two reasons have been forwarded for building the siding: to allow Downeaster passing of
Pan Am freight trains, and to allow passing of Downeasters heading in opposite directions between
Portland and Brunswick.

The paragraphs below demonstrate that neither argument is persuasive, and hence both premises for the
project are null and void. Which leaves only payment of consideration to Pan Am for increasing daily
slots from 6 to 10 as a credible purpose.

Related Notes:

 Metro Breez bus service operated by Greater Portland Transit District now makes multiple runs
per day between Brunswick and Portland, offering far greater flexibility and lower costs and
fares than the Downeaster, as well as far more boarding and unboarding locations.
(http://gpmetrobus.net/index.php/manage-forms/metro-breez-express-service-to-yarmouth-and-
freeport-begins-june-16) This service is diverting Downeaster ridership to/from Brunswick,
and undercuts the need for more rail round trips between Brunswick and Portland.
(http://www.timesrecord.com/news/2018-01-
26/Front_Page/Added_stops_in_Brunswick_paying_off.html)

 Furthermore, Amtrak's own ridership figures for FY 17 show essentially flat Brunswick
ridership figures in spite of the addition of a third daily round trip to Boston.

Downeaster Passing Pan Am Freight Trains

Records show that Pan Am runs about four freights per day between Portland and Royal Junction.
Only one per week runs from Portland to Brunswick. These trains do not operate on a published/pre-

2
determined schedule, but instead operate on a demand basis, with all movement controlled by a Pan
Am dispatcher.

As shown on pages 1 and 2 of the original December 10, 2017 memo to the Committee, there are
already two locations between Portland and Brunswick where a freight train could divert to allow a
scheduled, high speed Downeaster to pass unimpeded. The first is the existing 1.9 mile Deering siding,
between CP 194 and CP 192, just 3 miles south of the proposed Royal Junction siding. Additionally, a
freight train could divert to the existing controlled siding north of the Royal Junction between CP 185
and CP 183. The proposed siding is not needed because these are more than suitable for allowing
Downeasters to pass.

Beyond these options, there is ~6800 ft of double track from west of the Brunswick Layover Facility to
just beyond the Brunswick Station location, and a third track of ~2000 ft on that span. These sidings
offer multiple switching configurations and passing options, and Pan Am freights are often seen on
them.

Given that Pan Am provides dispatching services for all track sections mentioned, and that freight
trains are unscheduled and slow-moving, the notion that the proposed siding is needed to permit
increasing Downeaster round trips to Boston is not conpelling. Are we to believe that an unscheduled
freight and the scheduled Downeaster could only pass at this 4 mile stretch of track to avoid conflict,
given the other multiple options, and that Pan Am controls the movement of all trains? Such an
assertion is unconvincing, even without considering the operating issues that interfere with scheduled
intentions.

Takeaway: Justification for the proposed Royal Junction Siding based on Downeaster sharing
track with a freight train is wholly without merit and should be summarily rejected.

Southbound and Northbound Downeasters Passing Each Other

NNEPRA operates three Amtrak train sets to meet its schedule of five round trips daily between
Portland and Boston, three of which currently extend north to Brunswick.
(http://amtrakdowneaster.com/sites/default/files/schedule/Sept25_Schedule_11x17.pdf)

NNEPRA's Downeaster total operating route is approximately 145 miles, with 116 of that between
Portland and Boston's North Station. Royal Junction, the northern end of the proposed siding, is
roughly halfway between the Portland and Brunswick stations.

To begin with, the premise that two of the three trains operating on this system would be scheduled to
pass each other at full speed something like 15 miles from the northern terminus on a four mile track
interval is in itself a bridge too far. The thought that they could actually adhere to such schedule
precision while maintaining reliable operation of 5 round trips between Portland and Boston is
outlandish. Especially as justification for investing $10 million in capital funds.

Downeaster scheduling prioritizes arrival and departure times at Boston, the southern terminus, rather
than times at points north. Access to that major metropolitan area is clearly the rationale for

3
Downeaster operation, flimsy as it is. The established five round trips between Portland and Boston
should be expected to dominate the overall system timing, with the limited appeal of extension to
Freeport and Brunswick, as demonstrated in lackluster ridership numbers, holding little sway in
extending two of those.

Hence, looking at the current schedule is informative as to the likelihood of two of the three train-sets
passing at full speed on the proposed siding. Here is the most recent Southbound schedule:

And here is the most recent Northbound schedule (both September 2017):

We should expect any proposals for five daily round-trips from Brunswick will prioritize the existing
Boston arrival and departure times. Doing otherwise would threaten the core ridership base, of which
half is south of Maine's border, as one would expect for this service.

Juxtaposing probable passing times of Northbound and Southbound Downeasters a handful of miles
south of Freeport Station on a four mile siding over a 140 mile plus system makes clear the folly of
justifying the siding on that basis, especially on a “full speed”, scheduled basis. Especially when one

4
considers that operating precision to the minute vis-a-vis schedules is unlikely, other passing options
are available, and the dispatcher in control of train movements has visibility over real time
circumstances and choices for such passing.

If you extrapolate the above schedules to begin and end in Brunswick, you find no more than one
instance per day when Northbound and Southbound trains are on the tracks between Portland and
Brunswick at the same time. And even then they would “pass” no more than 10 minutes north of
Portland, if they were precisely on schedule. This brings the existing passing tracks between CP 194
and CP 192 directly into play, assuming the trains were precisely on schedule, which is wishing upon a
star. It also makes obvious the fact that a very minor adjustment to the schedule of the two trains
involved (684 and 681) would eliminate any possibility of conflict.

And don't forget the lengthy double sidings at the Brunswick Layover Facility that can easily be used
for trains in the vicinity of Brunswick Station.

Takeaway: Justification for the proposed Royal Junction Siding based on Downeasters reliably
passing on a short track segment at one end of the system should be summarily rejected.

Summary:

Careful examination of the arguments for construction of the Royal Junction Siding with $10 million of
taxpayer funds shows reliance on impossibly precise timing of train co-positioning which is at best
highly improbable, and at worst implausible. Train operations are manifestly not a rational limitation
on Downeaster service expansion to 5 daily round trips to Brunswick, as insensible as it is. Instead, the
only plausible explanation is the need for Pan Am to increase Downeaster daily slots on the Portland to
Brunswick track segment from 6 to 10.

This leaves only the possibility that the proposal masks a consideration to Pan Am Railways, both in
capital improvement and millions of dollars in make work activity, for increasing allotted slots. A quid-
pro-quo to be quite blunt. It is not the purpose of NNEPRA, and not in the interest of state and federal
taxpayers, to fund such gratuitous transfers.

Conclusion: The State's Legislature and Executive Branch should immediately call a stop to
Royal Junction Siding work, pending a detailed investigation of the project including railroad
peer review.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End Notes:

1. Circumstantial evidence indicates that switches east of the Brunswick Layover Facility have
been recently upgraded with heaters and radio control. It also appears that trains are now
using BLF east end access, though no documented specifics are at hand. This raises the
following questions, as mentioned in the original memo of 10 December:

5
 ◦ Was this included in the original BLF design and related contracts, but not implemented in
the construction phase?
◦ If they were not included in the original design and contracts, why not?
◦ What drove installation of the changes in recent weeks?
◦ How much did the work cost, and how was it funded? Were the funds from a reserve
account somewhere, or will they be sought in future subsidy requests? Or hidden in the
Royal Junction Siding contract?

2) Specific benefits included in the cited TIGER application reveal the lengths to which
NNEPRA will go to justify the unjustifiable:

 Preserve the Environment.

• Diverts more than 2.5 million passenger miles from the region’s road network
annually;
• Reduces annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by nearly 1 million miles;
• Reduces approximately 21,000 tons of emissions;
• Reduces fuel consumption by approximately 2.1 million gallons annually.

Apparently, in their calculations, a passenger mile on our roads consumes 0.84 gallons of fuel.
Or, by another estimate, traveling one mile in a vehicle consumes more than 2.1 gallons of fuel.
Both of these figures are patently absurd, and could not pass any test of reasonableness.

Are we to grant credibility to an organization that submits such “rationale” to government

authorities?

---------------------------------------------------------

pcs//28 January 18/1700